James Adonis is one of Australia's best-known people-management thinkers

Differences between men and women are often exaggerated, but if you believe new research released earlier this month, men and women in the workplace aren’t just different; they’re opposites.

What do you think? Leave your comment below

Overall, good-looking men were 56 per cent more likely to get an interview than good-looking women.

Recruitment firm Randstad surveyed 7000 Australian job seekers. The respondents were given a list of 18 factors, and asked to select those they considered the most important when choosing an employer. The top five chosen by men were totally different from the top five chosen by women.

Coming in narrowly at number one for the blokes was career progression opportunities, while for women (by a mile) was a flexible working environment. So, the most pressing concern for men was the potential to advance within the organisation, whereas women were more concerned by their ability to have an easily adaptable job.

Advertisement

The number two choices were also indicative of the differing gender priorities. Men value working for a company with financial stability, while women prefer a company with a strong workplace culture, which implies guys are less bothered about relationships at work than women. As long as the company seems financially secure and the future for hierarchical progression is bright, men are generally happy.

In third place for men was the need to work for a strong management/leadership team; for women it was the benefit of a convenient location. In fourth place for the blokes was an employer with a strong image and reputation; for women it was a desire to have a good work/life balance. And in fifth place for men was the stability of long-term job security; for women it was an employer that offers good learning and development.

A quick analysis of the above highlights one particularly pertinent point: men seem to be focused more on external factors, while women are more focused on internal stuff.

Here’s what I mean. Men want to achieve a high level of status within a secure and reputable company that consists of strong leaders. All of those elements are predominantly external to them personally. Women, on the other hand, want work that doesn’t intrude on their personal life at a workplace where they feel connected to their colleagues and where they’re constantly learning. Most of that is about internal fulfilment.

To put it another way, the research indicates that men are driven more by money and greed; women more by comfort and relationships.

There’s also another workplace-related factor where men and women differ, and that’s in the looks department. A study released last week by the Royal Economic Society in the UK revealed that attractive women should refrain from attaching their photo to a resumé because it decreases their chances of getting a response by between 20 and 30 per cent. Plain-looking women – or those who don’t attach a photo – are more likely to be called in for an interview.

The reason for this is simple: it’s a classic case of jealousy. Most recruiters tend to be young and female, and so they dislike the competition. The researchers refer to it as “beauty discrimination”.

The result was markedly different for attractive men. If they attached a photo to their resumé, 20 per cent of them received a reply from the recruiter, with a much lower response rate for those who looked average. Overall, good-looking men were 56 per cent more likely to get an interview than good-looking women.

The study was conducted in Israel by two academics who submitted 5,300 resumés for thousands of job vacancies. In Israel, it’s standard practice to attach a photo to a resumé, but not so in Australia. Regardless, the results clearly show the bias recruiters have when it comes to a candidate’s physical attractiveness.

And if it happens with a resumé, it’s bound to happen in an interview.

56 comments so far

"To put it another way, the research indicates that men are driven more by money and greed; women more by comfort and relationships."

Hmm a very bias interpretation of the results there. You could also argue from the results men are more ambitious then women and all women are interested in is good girlfriends to gossip around the water cooler with (strong workplace culture) and be able to take "hard-earned" breaks to go and get their hair and nails done (flexible work environment).

Let's try and be a little more objective James.

Fair point. Thanks. - James

Commenter

Richo

Location

Canberra

Date and time

April 29, 2011, 10:50AM

That's an amusing point about the jealousy factors with the HR girls. I'd noticed their propensity for giving the cute guy the job over the other candidates, but always assumed the few girls we hired was due to a male-dominated profession less so than them employing their filters to stay the prettiest in the pack.

Not muh you can do about it, really. HR doesn't seem to be a very attractive profession for guys. But maybe the quickest way to address a gender imbalance in your company to address a gender imbalance in your HR department?

Commenter

Ree

Location

Brisbane

Date and time

April 29, 2011, 11:07AM

Richo beat me to it. I'd also add that I wonder how this survey will affect hiring decisions. Males who want to go places within the company versus females who want relationships and flexibility. (Many would see 'flexibility' as a euphemism for 'the company should revolve around my wants, demands and comfort'.)

Commenter

Jane

Location

Brisbane

Date and time

April 29, 2011, 11:22AM

I'll refer to a quote from Cocktail: "You can take a guy so far, then it's a question of biology. - Biology is destiny." Men, traditionally are the bread winners and although there are some notable exceptions. Men and women can both start off with the same education and able to perform in the same way; women will eventually fall in love and decide to procreate, leading to a break in their career. Men will continue, rarely taking breaks for a chit chat during the day and wind down over a few beers after work. Women typically break for tea/coffee and gossip during the day; before I'm hounded down for being stereotypical - thats what this is about, generalizing to agree or disagree with the article. I agree with it and would prefer to see recruitment of more aesthetically pleasing of the fairer sex in my environment. Obviously, hire them based on their ability to get the job done and not just to make up the female numbers. Are both sexes capable of doing tasks, of course; however career wise, women will almost always eventually choose to procreate and thus have a limited lifespan in some roles.

Commenter

DaJackal

Location

sydney

Date and time

April 29, 2011, 11:39AM

Take the top couple of preferences and we have men choosing jobs that pay more now and into the future while women are not looking for money, either now or into the future.

Move forward a couple of years and men are getting paid more?

Funny that. Must be a "glass ceiling" imposed on women by men.

Commenter

Marshall

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

April 29, 2011, 11:40AM

I've never attached a photo to my resume. I didn't know people did that. I usually sent off my resume to a recruiter who would then call me in for an interview.

I do agree about fulfillment and relationships in the workplace. If I'm going to spend most of my time at work, I want to be spending that time with people I like. It's soul destroying to work with people you hate just because the money might be good. I want good money and good people. But I'll settle for less money and good people. It's easy to make money but not easy to find compatible colleagues.

I can't believe that all men are motivated by money and greed. I've seen what a bad job can do to a man and it seems to affect them more negatively than us. That's probably because a man defines himself by his job more than a woman does (gross generalisation, true, but you get the idea).

Commenter

Audra Blue

Location

Brisbane

Date and time

April 29, 2011, 11:54AM

And that's exactly the problem with women - they're all about the job suiting their lifestyle, rather than fitting their lifestyle to the job.

I employed a lot of women in my industry only to have the following happen:

Many would take the job only because they were planning to get pregnant & needed the benefits.

Many had multiple pregnancies & would be out for years. I had one woman who gave birth to 3 children in 5 years & only ever worked for approx. 12 months during all that time. This while I had to 'hold her job open for her....'

I had 5 women pregnant all at once (out of a staff of 11) and I had to try & cover the work for all of them.

The women all wanted to progress quickly but weren't willing to put in the hard work. 'Being there' is not a justification for a promotion.

Many weren't willing to travel because they 'had a family', so I had to cover their travel for them.

They couldn't work late or join in global teleconferences because 'they had a family & a life'. As if I didn't have a life!

Even though I'm a woman, I really found female employees hard work. They gossiped & bitched all the time & were quite cruel to other women. Character assasination seemed to be their speciality. Yet, these same women were the first to run to HR when they had a personal beef.

Given a choice, employing a female became my last option.

Commenter

tracy

Location

melbourne

Date and time

April 29, 2011, 12:00PM

Could the differnece in the responses maybe part of the reason as to why there are only a few women in high corporate jobs? and why it should stay that way (unless they are willing to change there wants/desires, cause the corporates arent going to change what they expect from there high flying execs, nor will the shareholders). No CEO position of an ASX200 is going to have any of those things on the women Top 5 list. i have ZERO problem with women in those positions, but they need to earn that position, and willing to LIVE for the company (The corporate world, OWN their execs). Not given it cause there should be more women in that area. Otherwise that would then be discrimination against the male candidates, and arent we after equality in work places? Even if only 1 in 10 women have the same as men, then by theory, there should only be 1 in 10 women in the exec positions.NOT being sexist, just being REALISTIC.

Commenter

Tom

Location

Newcastle

Date and time

April 29, 2011, 12:20PM

The author is correct. They seem to be working differently and possibly opposite. <<edited by moderator>>

Commenter

rudraksha

Date and time

April 29, 2011, 12:39PM

I'm on the same track as Marshall. Maybe this just highlights some of the indicators of the 'glass ceiling'. Look at the mens attributes as compared to the womens, and it appears as though the mens attitudes would be more in line with an organisations expectations of its employees. The women's attitudes in contrast, are focussed on their own needs, and are perhaps more cost to the organsiation than the mens.